W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: MutationObserver - a better interface

From: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:44 +0100
To: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <lddqfl$eol$1@ger.gmane.org>
OK, I see.

But, well, that's, too, even one more point for having had MutationObserver 
being a Node's member as it doesn't make any sense to observe a Node you 
don't have any more references to in code.

So, I'd have suggested to have the whole MutationObserver interface being 
added to Node.


----------------------
"Anne van Kesteren"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:CADnb78jj-CeVd2BGjiqNDOQ=mNfM+4UUs6bzuntWKUcRrTCVUg@mail.gmail.com...

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Moreover: If there is a MutationObserver attached to a node and if that 
> node
> gets deleted from the DOM, the corresponding observer must automatically
> disconnect and the internal “Node <> CallBackFunction” entry must be 
> removed
> from the MutationObserver's internal dictionary.

No you don't want that. If a node is removed from the DOM nodes can
still be inserted into and in fact while it is removed it can be that
it is being inserted someplace else.

And yes, we're not going to change the current API.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:35:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:22 UTC